Everything but the Hat Hair
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison ended the Linux distribution wars today, as far as corporate installations are concerned, with the flat-out statement that "We can't provide the same level of support" (for Oracle products on other distributions as they can on Red Hat). "We've elected to work very closely with Red Hat. We're recommending Red Hat." Ellison did everything for Red Hat except actually wear the red Red Hat hat handed to him by Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik.
If you're paying, or planning to pay, for an Oracle license, better listen to Uncle Larry. He dismissed even the much-hyped UnitedLinux as another of the "crazy names" that will get second-rate support. With all the software vendors that depend on or integrate with Oracle, this is the only domino that needs to fall. 550 vendors have certified applications with Oracle 9i on Linux, Oracle announced today.
But at today's "Unbreakable Linux" launch event at Oracle's HQ in Redwood Shores, California, the subject wasn't the same old bleeding-edge, wild and wooly, "release every six months whether it's ready or not" Red Hat distribution that regulars at Linux installfests have learned to greet with a crack-pipe-smoking gesture. It's now all about Red Hat Linux Advanced Server, which was introduced in March.
Michael Evans, VP Business Development for Red Hat, said that the proprietary software companies wanted a slower, more stable, platform to work on. One software vendor might support their package on Red Hat 6.2, while another supports on 7.1. The problem, Evans pointed out, is what happens when one customer wants to run both.
Evans said the software vendors told him to "stop doing this every six months, you're killing us". The result is a Red Hat for customers who work on UNIX time--long release intervals but short support response times.
Red Hat Advanced Server will have a 12-18 month release cycle and receive more in-house testing at Oracle than any other OS, said Red Hat VP Engineering Paul Cormier. Red Hat Advanced Server is available at a starting price of $799, but all components are GPL or otherwise free software, so you can assemble the necessary parts yourself if you like. Packages with 4-hour and 1-hour support response times are available for higher prices. Red Hat Advanced Server is now available for the IA-32 architecture, and IA-64 and IBM mainframe support will be coming soon, Evans said.
Kernel-level features include finer grained spin locks, tweaked-out support for large memory on 32-bit systems and an alternate scheduler with process-CPU affinity. There is also a Red Hat Cluster Manager to handle load balancing and failover. Besides supporting Oracle, Red Hat Advanced Server does NFS and Samba failover "out of the box", according to Cormier.
Oracle for Linux now installs an Oracle-specific clustered filesystem for multiple servers attached to one shared disk array, and Red Hat is considering using it as the basis for a planned general-purpose clustered filesystem, Cormier said.
Red Hat further announced that 20 major software vendors have already committed to Advanced Server.
Why is Oracle so fired up about Linux? Ellison boiled it down to this: "Simple. Our clusters work." Applications such as SAP work fine with a cluster of Linux boxes running Oracle 9i Release 2 as their database, Ellison said, while Microsoft SQL Server and IBM DB2 for UNIX can't support business applications. "Their clusters only run benchmarks."
Small- and mid-sized customers can't afford a cluster of big systems, so Linux clusters are the only way Ellison can get his cluster pitch to those customers. "Clustering is not just for the high end of the market", Ellison said. "We think clustering is going to be more than half of our business."
Don Marti is technical editor of Linux Journal.

Comments
I'm sick of people comparing Red Hat to Microsoft. There is a big difference, RED HAT SOURCE CODE IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB. They will never become a monopoly as long as Gnu/Linux is still under the GPL. Unlike Microsoft's shady dealings with PC manufacturers, Red Hat's dealings can be based on real business and not on trying to maintain a marketshare artificially held by propietary standards. STOP BASHING RED HAT just because they're making out better than most Gnu/Linux distros. Red Hat makes a lot of contributions to the Gnu/Linux community. I guess some people are always going to hate/envy the top dog no matter who it is.
I think the comparison lies more in the fact that people expect other people to be dishonest. Let's face facts... what corporation would turn down M$'s market share? Who wouldn't do a little dirty dealing to throw around the kind of money they do? Do you honestly think that if Red Hat found a loop hole in the GNU license that they wouldn't exploit it for a buck? Let's face it, nothing, NOTHING, will ever stay free when there are lawyers involved. People Suck. And if Red Hat were to have M$'s business fall in their lap.. they'd suck too. Rip off your OS and Screw EVERYBODY!
Why can't we see something more along the lines of what SGI does: bundle up a "core" distribution that goes for 12+ months with 2 "streams": a "maintenance" stream, with only bugfixes to the core code, and a "feature" stream which has feature upgrades (ie. new versions of software, but always backwards compatible with the core release)?
That way the shops that need the stability can stick with a "maintenance" stream and only get bugfixes & security updates, while the more adventurous can get new versions of code to try.
Fedora Core is the "feature stream" for Red Hat. RHAS (or RHEL) is the "maintenance stream", and the one that pays the bills at Red Hat. Don't really know about that "backward compatibility" thing, though. Fedora is rather more experimental than that, I believe.
A particular release of Red Hat is maintained for a good long time, even after a newer release has been made - that way, it's up to the people which way they want to go.
Releases of Fedora are put out to the Legacy Project pasture rather quickly, by contrast.
So far, my experience with Oracle on Linux isn't a good one. While I really like Oracle, the installation process is er, uh broken? I have both the 8.1.7 and 9i versions. Redhat 7.1/7.3 nope. SuSe 8.0? Nothin' doin'.
As far as Redhat goes, I tend to see it as the Microsoft of the OpenSource world. It gets a lot of press, often prior to reality. I prefer Mandrake and SuSe...
I'd really like to recommend this combination to customers, but if it won't work for me, it's not worth the hassle.
My two cents..
-rg
My experience is different. I have bought boxed issue of Mandrake and SuSE both in range of $100. I also bought Red Hat as book attachment - twenty canadian $, book and 3 CDs. While I had plenty of basic problems with Mandrake and SuSE, I have no problems with Red Hat. Except for my low end scanner, everything works.
jiripetr@cognisurf.com
To the previous post....
By 'everything' do you also mean Oracle? Just getting RedHat to run on your desktop workstation isn't exactly the same as getting the beast which is Oracle to install and run soundly.
Just wanting to clarify...
Well, a bit haisty there.
Check your facts first. I got Oracle 8i on both RH 6.2 and 7.2, by just doing a basic Google search to learn about the glib stubs.
And with the Microsoft thing, you're terribly wrong. Mandrake ? I mean come on, sounds like you don't know what a high-stress server is, or the work RH in putting into it's kernels. You've gotta catch up with your reading...
I pitty those customers mentioned there.
Where's the much hyped "freedom of choice" here? We are looking at another kind of monopoly here. When more ISV's choose to support only Red Hat we have no choice anymore to use another distribution whether it's better or not.
This is a good thing for Red Hat. However, it is not a good thing for Linux.
Granted, that this will be great for Red Hat, and MAY not be so great for other Linux or distros. Nevertheless, I would rather have Red Hat beat M$ monopoly, then all the Linux distros fight amongst themselves. I have been using RH as for Desktop and Sever. And it kicks butt!!
Better watch out Larry of Oracle. PostgreSQL is coming :-)
Strange thing to talk about "distribution wars". It's nationality issues, as always.
SuSE has a 12 month release cycle product (Enterprise Server) since last year, Turbolinux also (I believe). It's always the same...
Hell, Debian hasn't realeased anything in many years! :)
YES--Now if we could only get this kind of 12-18 month
release cycle for a desktop-oriented distrobution.
Nobody likes writing software or documentation that
has to be rehashed every six months. Tech support
people hate it, too.. It's a serious pain in the ass when
you'd rather be working on something else.
Red Hat Advanced Server offers something that ISVs
NEED--not just want.
Matthew
No oracle , at the price level of a full oracle
license any other cost seems like peanuts.
Many Ceo's don't know it, but if there are only a few hundred
clients I would use interbase or firebird (which is the open version) it works on linux (red hat,suse,debian , turbo ....that's
were I saw it running) and you can even write your own front ends in delphi,c,pearl,python,php without needing an usually expensive oracle guru.
Of course having an heavy weight supporting the linux cause is not of it's disadvantages , but there are alternatives which
often are as well supported as the big guns.
I agree with you that stability in expected behaviour from GNU/Linux distributions would be a very welcome feature. It would greatly enhance the "long term" investment in software, for we wouldn't need to update as often as we do now (Yes, you guessed correctly, I am one on the user side).
OTOH GNU/Linux is still playing catch up with Windows and MacOS X and Classic.If the development pace were to be slowed on the desktop distro's, it might mean that the overall development will be slowed down. How many developpers roll their own GNU/Linux distro and how many develop on a regular distribution?
I am afraid that a 12 to 18 month desktop development cycle would cause desktop GNU/Linux to get stale very quickly and as of right now it is only faintly starting to blossom on desktop computers.
Maybe the solution would be to invest more resources into backward compatibility and less in implementing the next must have feature that breaks all previous software.
I might be oversimplifying the case, but IANAP, so please correct me if I'm wrong...
When there's a lot of popular proprietary software for the Linux desktop, Red Hat will probably release an "Advanced Desktop". Red Hat Advanced Server seems to be intended as a target for proprietary software vendors.
If you're doing a distribution for people who run all Free software, you have much more flexibility, because you don't need to stay binary-compatible across releases.
Even if Free Software is a Good Enough desktop for most users at a company, Somebody in the company will probably still be using a proprietary accounting, graphics, or database application for the short- and medium-term -- and it's easier to support one distribution than several.
I think you are so right. The establishment as a desktop vs server is'nt at par whatsoever. The desktop need to have more "free" space. So far I can only see 2 desktops (GNOME/KDE) and thereby we have sorted out ONE of many issues (multitude of desktops), now there is up to what API's and WM's it will be. For this, a 12-18 schedule is disasterous! It happends so much to the kernel (usb etc) as to the API's (GTK+/QT) themselves.
One more thing: It's (like you said too) first now in the 2002 the linux as a desktop has been taken more seriously. I can see a future where distros are more pro-desktop/server than both at the same time.
YES--Now if we could only get this kind of 12-18 month
release cycle for a desktop-oriented distrobution...
"Are you being sarcastic, dude?"
"I don't even know any more"
-Simpsons